Making a better ranger.

[LanSlyde]

This might belong in the homebrew forums, but meh.

So, good old Ranger. Everyone at some point looked at the class and thought it was cool. Then we got wiser and realized its kinda lackluster.

So here's a thought. What if we the available combat styles and rolled them together instead of splitting them down separate paths? I mean, what if they got both styles instead of choosing between TWF and ranged.

Secondly, the Beastmaster PRC from ComAdv. What if we removed it from existence and rolled its class features into the ranger at equal levels? By this I mean giving ranger an extra companion at 4th level, etc.

I opinions from those in the playground who have more experience modding classes than I. Thanks in advance.

How would the ranger stack up against other mundanes at this point?

[Saintheart]

If rangers got both styles it might make them more versatile, but the real problem remains that (a) they're melee combat styles in a game of rampaging magic users and (b) they're melee combat styles that can't access Power Attack. And neither style synergises that well with the other. I don't think it'd make much difference; it's turning a one-trick pony into a two-trick pony.

[LanSlyde]

If rangers got both styles it might make them more versatile, but the real problem remains that (a) they're melee combat styles in a game of rampaging magic users and (b) they're melee combat styles that can't access Power Attack. And neither style synergises that well with the other. I don't think it'd make much difference; it's turning a one-trick pony into a two-trick pony.

Disregarding rampaging magic users. You ignored the additional animal companions. While yes, we all know that TWF is inferior to THF, would you say that the additional companions at least lessen the gap?

[Jowgen]

They can be made decent with sufficient ACFs, and a fix could be done by improving upon those.

They can get druid wildshape (with size limitations) in exchange for combat style, and one of the dragon mags has alternate fighting styles, which noticeably includes getting Power Attack without meeting the prerequesites. If you added them both, and maybe allowed a ranger to either get additional styles, or freely choose between style feats, we'd have a lot of versitality. Add the casting progression of a mystic ranger (again, dragon mag) to the mix for free (or maybe as an alternative to wildshape?), and you could have a very combat able, versatile, wildshaper with decent casting.

In any case, the main thing that needs fixing in my opinion is the Favored Enemy mechanic. The categories are to narrow. If every Favored Enemy had the scope that the Arcane Hunter ACF gives, it would be a genuinely decent ability, especially if all the different boosts (Solitary hunter for to hit, Girdle of Hatred to double, Group Enimity teamwork benefit for shared bonuses) are available.

So yeah. A wildshaping ranger with the mystic casting progression, free choice of all fighting style feats at the appropriate levels, and a choice of broader Favored Enemy selections in the vein of Arcane Hunter would be a pretty sweet class. A little bit too much, perhaps?

[LanSlyde]

They can be made decent with sufficient ACFs, and a fix could be done by improving upon those.

They can get druid wildshape (with size limitations) in exchange for combat style, and one of the dragon mags has alternate fighting styles, which noticeably includes getting Power Attack without meeting the prerequesites. If you added them both, and maybe allowed a ranger to either get additional styles, or freely choose between style feats, we'd have a lot of versitality. Add the casting progression of a mystic ranger (again, dragon mag) to the mix for free (or maybe as an alternative to wildshape?), and you could have a very combat able, versatile, wildshaper with decent casting.

In any case, the main thing that needs fixing in my opinion is the Favored Enemy mechanic. The categories are to narrow. If every Favored Enemy had the scope that the Arcane Hunter ACF gives, it would be a genuinely decent ability, especially if all the different boosts (Solitary hunter for to hit, Girdle of Hatred to double, Group Enimity teamwork benefit for shared bonuses) are available.

So yeah. A wildshaping ranger with the mystic casting progression, free choice of all fighting style feats at the appropriate levels, and a choice of broader Favored Enemy selections in the vein of Arcane Hunter would be a pretty sweet class. A little bit too much, perhaps?

I honestly would not say its too much. In fact it sounds fine. But you didn't actually evaluate my proposed changes. Although I might meddle with Favored Enemy, that will come later.

[LudicSavant]

I had a half-finished Ranger fix which massively overhauled the class to be competitive with competently built Sorcerers and pass the Same Game Test (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_%28DnD_Guideline%29). And to just be generally more interesting (I find a lot of the core martials to have really bland gameplay and flavor). A big part of that was completely redoing Favored Enemy as something much more significant.

Instead of generic +X bonuses to attacks against an enemy type, they'd get access to suites of abilities for "ghost hunters" or "dragonslayers" or whatever which were especially useful for countering the abilities of those types of enemies, but were still really useful in general. Martial techniques, alchemical tricks, a mastery of things like salt or silver, preternaturally honed senses, and unrivaled survivalist knowhow.

So, for instance, ghost hunting archers would be able to fire spirit-binding arrows that could hit allips hiding inside of walls... or lock down an ethereal or dimension hopping caster. A dragonslayer might have an ability to absorb elemental damage and get a dragonfire-inspiration like effect, or spin his blades to disperse area of effect things like fireballs or breath weapons. Also he could learn to dragoon jump (it could go extremely high, and it could knock flying things out of the air... causing them to take falling damage. It also basically let them charge over obstacles).

Another part was that they had a similar thing for terrains, which would allow them to do all sorts of crazy things with the environment... including being really good at rigging booby traps and the like which would punish people for taking any wrong move. Definitely gave it a very different feel than, say, the Tome of Battle warriors. Think something like Sid in this fight: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v16897969shBZ8MkC?h1=Battles--Soul+Eater%3A+Sid+vs+Mifune

I never finished it, though. Life happened. You know. Maybe I should dig it back up again at some point?

[nedz]

Swap the Druid and Ranger animal companions. This gives the ranger an extra melle combatant/mount/etc.
Change the Combat style options to be: any feats from the same feat tree, or feats which effect the same weapon. This opens up more varied combat styles and creates more character options without effecting the power levels too much.
Make the spell casting spontaneous, with 1 spell known per Ranger level. Many ranger spells are situational and they get very few slots. This is quite an improvement. This is not as powerful as Mystic Ranger.

[LanSlyde]

I had a half-finished Ranger fix which massively overhauled the class to be competitive with competently built Sorcerers and pass the Same Game Test (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_%28DnD_Guideline%29). And to just be generally more interesting (I find a lot of the core martials to have really bland gameplay and flavor). A big part of that was completely redoing Favored Enemy as something much more significant.

Instead of generic +X bonuses to attacks against an enemy type, they'd get access to suites of abilities for "ghost hunters" or "dragonslayers" or whatever which were especially useful for countering the abilities of those types of enemies, but were still really useful in general. Martial techniques, alchemical tricks, a mastery of things like salt or silver, preternaturally honed senses, and unrivaled survivalist knowhow.

So, for instance, ghost hunting archers would be able to fire spirit-binding arrows that could hit allips hiding inside of walls... or lock down an ethereal or dimension hopping caster. A dragonslayer might have an ability to absorb elemental damage and get a dragonfire-inspiration like effect, or spin his blades to disperse area of effect things like fireballs or breath weapons. Also he could learn to dragoon jump (it could go extremely high, and it could knock flying things out of the air... causing them to take falling damage. It also basically let them charge over obstacles).

Another part was that they had a similar thing for terrains, which would allow them to do all sorts of crazy things with the environment... including being really good at rigging booby traps and the like which would punish people for taking any wrong move. Definitely gave it a very different feel than, say, the Tome of Battle warriors. Think something like Sid in this fight: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v16897969shBZ8MkC?h1=Battles--Soul+Eater%3A+Sid+vs+Mifune

I never finished it, though. Life happened. You know. Maybe I should dig it back up again at some point?

Sounds nifty. But I really don't want to put that much effort into it. I'm just trying to take a couple of bad things and try and make something better with it.

[LanSlyde]

Swap the Druid and Ranger animal companions. This gives the ranger an extra melle combatant/mount/etc.
Change the Combat style options to be: any feats from the same feat tree, or feats which effect the same weapon. This opens up more varied combat styles and creates more character options without effecting the power levels too much.
Make the spell casting spontaneous, with 1 spell known per Ranger level. Many ranger spells are situational and they get very few slots. This is quite an improvement. This is not as powerful as Mystic Ranger.


Planned on removing the Druids AC entirely and just making in a ranger thing.

Open up versatility yes, but I probably wont do it, as it starts to encroach on the only thing fighters have going for them.

I'm already considering giving them additional animal companions. I want to make them more more effective, but not to the point where they start pulling ahead of the other mundanes. I worry that giving them more spells on top of everything else is a bit much.

[nedz]

Open up versatility yes, but I probably wont do it, as it starts to encroach on the only thing fighters have going for them.
Three feats over 11 levels barely encroaches on Fighter.

Also: why are all Rangers TWF or Archery specialists ? There are other variants already, so why not allow the player more options ?


I'm already considering giving them additional animal companions. I want to make them more more effective, but not to the point where they start pulling ahead of the other mundanes. I worry that giving them more spells on top of everything else is a bit much.

They are already ahead of fighters but way behind casters even with this change.

[LudicSavant]

Sounds nifty. But I really don't want to put that much effort into it. I'm just trying to take a couple of bad things and try and make something better with it.

The best low effort fixes tend to be... not to make a fix at all, and just use stronger classes to build something flavorfully similar to the character concept you want. Such an approach tends to have the added benefit of being easier to get any DM to accept.

For instance, one of the best "paladin fixes" is to simply play a melee cleric, particularly with prestige classes like Ordained Champion or Ruby Knight Vindicator.

[LanSlyde]

Three feats over 11 levels barely encroaches on Fighter.

Also: why are all Rangers TWF or Archery specialists ? There are other variants already, so why not allow the player more options ?



They are already ahead of fighters but way behind casters even with this change.

Why are they specialists? Because they are. Same reason warmages, beguilers, healers, and dread necromancers are specialists.

[LanSlyde]

The best low effort fixes tend to be... not to make a fix at all, and just use stronger classes to build something flavorfully similar to the character concept you want. Such an approach tends to have the added benefit of being easier to get any DM to accept.

For instance, one of the best "paladin fixes" is to simply play a melee cleric, particularly with prestige classes like Ordained Champion or Ruby Knight Vindicator.

I can't disagree with your first point.

However, your best 'paladin fix' isn't really a fix. It solves the problem of playing a decent face-punching holy warrior, but the Paladin class is still very much ****e. It's less of a fix an more of a bypass.

[LudicSavant]

I can't disagree with your first point.

However, your best 'paladin fix' isn't really a fix. It solves the problem of playing a decent face-punching holy warrior, but the Paladin class is still very much ****e. It's less of a fix an more of a bypass.

That position strikes me as semantics over substance. If the Cleric class didn't previously exist, and you posted its relevant melee tools and such as a "homebrew paladin fix," it would be superior to the majority of homebrew paladin fixes that I have encountered.

It's functionally the same thing as making a "homebrew fix" class. In both cases, you are replacing the old kit with a new kit.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Bumping their casting and animal companion up to be based on their full level, or at least level-3 is a good start. Giving them a few more spells/day (or just upgrading their casting to Mystic Ranger levels) is another simple upgrade. If you want a bit more, codify the Swift Hunter build as fact and just gestalt them with the Scout. Unify the mechanics a bit and turn the favored enemy bonus damage into extra skirmish damage against them.

[LanSlyde]

That position strikes me as semantics over substance. If the Cleric class didn't previously exist, and you posted its relevant melee tools and such as a "homebrew paladin fix," it would be superior to the majority of homebrew paladin fixes that I have encountered.

It's functionally the same thing as making a "homebrew fix" class. In both cases, you are replacing the old kit with a new kit.

Perhaps, regardless it does not sit well with me.

[LudicSavant]

Perhaps, regardless it does not sit well with me.

Is there any reason why, besides this? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0209.gif)

[Troacctid]

Is there any reason why, besides this? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0209.gif)

The play pattern of a Cleric doesn't match the desired play pattern of a Paladin. While you're capable of duplicating the functions of a Paladin, you're still primarily focused on casting spells, not smiting evil.

A good fix needs to know what it's trying to accomplish so that it can add power in the right places. Replacing Paladin with Cleric adds power, yes, but it does so in a way that undermines the class's core identity rather than reinforcing it.

[bean illus]

If i wanted to make an easy adjustment, based on above points...

= Give both combat styles, and SQUEEZE IN ONE BONUS FEAT just to make one style more custom/effective.

= Switch druid Animal Companion.

= All spells known and spontaneous. Ranger is MAD so caster level/DC is soft anyway.

= Give them cantrips @ lvl 1 (its not much but gives them a few tricks).

They are not full casters but this might help folks who are mid gaming.

[Snowbluff]

Bumping their casting and animal companion up to be based on their full level, or at least level-3 is a good start. Giving them a few more spells/day (or just upgrading their casting to Mystic Ranger levels) is another simple upgrade. If you want a bit more, codify the Swift Hunter build as fact and just gestalt them with the Scout. Unify the mechanics a bit and turn the favored enemy bonus damage into extra skirmish damage against them.

Mystic Ranger spells + some expansion from 5th level druid and cleric spells + Duskblade Spells per day progression. So they get 5/9 evenly divided among their levels, and a bunch of nice spells.

I would also suggest considering the Spirit Shaman style casting (as opposed to purely spontaneous), and changing combat style into fighter bonus feats.

[LudicSavant]

The play pattern of a Cleric doesn't match the desired play pattern of a Paladin. While you're capable of duplicating the functions of a Paladin, you're still primarily focused on casting spells, not smiting evil.

A good fix needs to know what it's trying to accomplish so that it can add power in the right places. Replacing Paladin with Cleric adds power, yes, but it does so in a way that undermines the class's core identity rather than reinforcing it.

I agree that a good fix needs to know what it's trying to accomplish so that it can add power in the right places in order to reinforce the class's identity. However, when you say that various melee Cleric builds do not do this, it strikes me as the position of a person who is not aware of the breadth of options available for melee clerics in supplements.

A cleric can in fact have the same general play pattern as a paladin. The primary play pattern of the paladin is that you go up and hit things with weapons and use some abilities that augment your ability to hit things with weapons like Knight's Move or Smite Evil. And occasionally do some emergency healing or something.

Many melee Cleric builds do the exact same thing, spending pretty much all of their in-encounter time making weapon attacks. Their augments are just better. They also have some extra options for paladin-like things, like inspiring the party with Righteous Wrath of the Faithful. And they actually have more "this is totally like a martial maneuver or augments a martial maneuver" abilties than the Paladin does. Enough that you can be extraordinarily viable while spending all your spell slots that way. And then there's Crusader maneuvers (for the Ruby Knight Vindicators) or converting your spell slots into cool customized smite effects (for the Ordained Champions). And you can take both if losing a bunch of spell levels makes you happier, and it'll still be solid.

If all it did was "add power" I wouldn't recommend it as a fix. That's not how I measure quality of design.

[Troacctid]

I'm well aware that Clerics have spells that duplicate Paladin abilities. They also have a ton of spells that do very different things, many of which are more powerful than and/or are a flavor mismatch with the Paladin stuff, and all of them are directly competing with the Paladin stuff for spell slots. Once you hit high levels, you're going to be a caster, not a Paladin—there's not much getting around it when you're playing with a list like the Cleric's. Why are you hitting people with your sword when you could be casting Flame Strike or Blade Barrier or Summon Monster VII?

[LudicSavant]

Why are you hitting people with your sword when you could be casting Flame Strike or Blade Barrier or Summon Monster VII?

Because that melee cleric over there moved 200 feet by expending Footsteps of the Divine and eviscerated you for 200 damage and a smattering of status effects with an auto-hitting Surge of Fortune smite in the time it took you to cast Flame Strike.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't think you're fully aware of what is available on "a list like the cleric's."


They also have a ton of spells that do very different things, many of which are more powerful than and/or are a flavor mismatch with the Paladin stuff, and all of them are directly competing with the Paladin stuff for spell slots.

Spells like Footsteps of the Divine and Surge of Fortune are most definitely competitive with spells like Flame Strike, Blade Barrier, or Summon Monster.

[Rebel7284]

While beastmaster 1 dip is nice, the fact that the animal companions get progressively weaker is kind of silly. You get a 1HD riding dog as a capstone! Woo! Even adding it for free is unexciting, it's that bad.

As for the rest of the suggestions, as people pointed out, there are existing ACFs that are more powerful...

Taking a Wildshaping Arcane Hunter Trapfinder Mystic Ranger with the Sword of the Arcane Order feat creates a TIER TWO character who only drops off in power after level 10 (spell progression slows/stops)

[Baroknik]

Re: extra animal companions

I wouldn't go that route for a couple of reasons...

Even if you gave the Ranger a 20-level Beast Master type AC progression, they would end up with the following equivalent AC's at 20:

20
17
14
11
8
5
2

You have 2, maybe 3 animal companions that will be useful, you have 4 (probably 5) that will be dead-weight.

Also, if the player does try and use these AC and somehow makes them useful you run into the problem that all of the sudden one player is getting 8 (EIGHT!) turns per turn, which is seriously going to bog down combat. Yes, with magic you can get NI turns per turn, but that doesn't mean that it is fun for others to watch. This is a problem even at low levels.

If you want multiple animal companions, I would suggest giving them the druid progression for AC's and also maybe Wild Cohort as a bonus feat. This gives two "pets" of different types -- one more of a true companion, the other more of a loyal pet.

[Nihilarian]

Rangers don't have enough bonus damage to make TWF work well, so giving them both trees doesn't really help. You're still better off using a bow and a two-handed melee weapon if you want to play a switch hitter. Used like this, the Ranger keeps up with any pure Martial that doesn't come from the Book of Nine Swords. If you want them to use two weapons or Dexterity based archery you're going to have to do more than give them bonus feats.

Beastmaster's Extra companions suck. What kind of class feature gives you progressively weaker companions the higher you go? It has nothing else of interest, either. Just have the animal companion advance like you're a Druid, and while you're at it increase the Ranger's caster level to be equal to it's Ranger level.

[nedz]

Why are they specialists? Because they are. Same reason warmages, beguilers, healers, and dread necromancers are specialists.

This argument is nonsense. They are TWF or Archery specialists for entirely arbitrary reasons which has nothing to do with the class concept.

[ComaVision]

My Ranger fix is to show the interested party the Mystic Ranger from Dragon magazine.

EDIT: You may want to say what sort of power you're shooting for with your fix. I just assume Tier 3 but if you want a Tier 1 ranger it needs more power.

[LudicSavant]

This argument is nonsense. They are TWF or Archery specialists for entirely arbitrary reasons which has nothing to do with the class concept.


My Ranger fix is to show the interested party the Mystic Ranger from Dragon magazine.

EDIT: You may want to say what sort of power you're shooting for with your fix. I just assume Tier 3 but if you want a Tier 1 ranger it needs more power.

I think an important point when asking for a fix in general is to establish a few things.

1) What power level are you shooting for?
2) What is the "class concept" for you? What is the flavor of the character you want to realize that your fix should reinforce?

[Grod_The_Giant]

EDIT: You may want to say what sort of power you're shooting for with your fix. I just assume Tier 3 but if you want a Tier 1 ranger it needs more power.
Druid who trades Wildshape for favored enemy and combat style. Boom, Tier 1 Ranger.

[Flickerdart]

Giving someone both TWF and archery doesn't really work because the character would have to invest in four weapons' worth of gold (main sword, off-hand sword, bow, magic arrows) to keep up.

[Troacctid]

Dual-wield shurikens. Boom, problem solved.

[LanSlyde]

While I appreciate the responses, allow me to summarize nearly every reaction thus far.

Me: Hey people, should I add some sliced tomato to my ham sandwich?

Not Me: Make chicken cordon bleu.

Me: Wait, what? I was asking about tomatoes.

Not me: Better Idea! Lasagna!

Me: But I don't want to make something that complicated, I just wanted to spice up this old ham sandwich.

Not me: Instead of ham sandwich, what about a 12" Sub?

Me: Sounds delicious, but a little too much right now.

Not me: It's all food, you can pretend its a ham sandwich.

Me: I give up, I'll just be quiet until the frenzy wears off and I can ask this question again.

[ComaVision]

Since you insist...

Your idea is pretty bad. Have both sets of Combat Style feats and a bunch of pets that are too weak to be helpful doesn't make the class any better at all. Basically everyone would play a Ranger the same way they do now. Buffing up Favored Enemy would not make the class any better either.

That's why people are giving other suggestions instead of addressing your specific suggestions.

[LanSlyde]

Since you insist...

Your idea is pretty bad. Have both sets of Combat Style feats and a bunch of pets that are too weak to be helpful doesn't make the class any better at all. Basically everyone would play a Ranger the same way they do now. Buffing up Favored Enemy would not make the class any better either.

That's why people are giving other suggestions instead of addressing your specific suggestions.

Thank you! Also, thank Flickerdart as well, and Baroknik.


So, just to clarify, full AC progression, and giving them 3 extra ACs is no bueno. Hrrm, what if we dropped it down to 2 ACs of equal progression and gestalt Scout instead of fiddling about with Beastmaster?

[Windrammer]

They can be made decent with sufficient ACFs, and a fix could be done by improving upon those.

They can get druid wildshape (with size limitations) in exchange for combat style, and one of the dragon mags has alternate fighting styles, which noticeably includes getting Power Attack without meeting the prerequesites. If you added them both, and maybe allowed a ranger to either get additional styles, or freely choose between style feats, we'd have a lot of versitality. Add the casting progression of a mystic ranger (again, dragon mag) to the mix for free (or maybe as an alternative to wildshape?), and you could have a very combat able, versatile, wildshaper with decent casting.

In any case, the main thing that needs fixing in my opinion is the Favored Enemy mechanic. The categories are to narrow. If every Favored Enemy had the scope that the Arcane Hunter ACF gives, it would be a genuinely decent ability, especially if all the different boosts (Solitary hunter for to hit, Girdle of Hatred to double, Group Enimity teamwork benefit for shared bonuses) are available.

So yeah. A wildshaping ranger with the mystic casting progression, free choice of all fighting style feats at the appropriate levels, and a choice of broader Favored Enemy selections in the vein of Arcane Hunter would be a pretty sweet class. A little bit too much, perhaps?

To make ranger stronger in a way that's still meaningful and appropriate for a ranger it would definitely have to revolve around favored enemy. Broader selections, and better according perks.

Furthermore, Rangers should have some sort of ability to figure out the weaknesses of new enemies, and get access to touch attacks or something of the like for a perception roll.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So, just to clarify, full AC progression, and giving them 3 extra ACs is no bueno. Hrrm, what if we dropped it down to 2 ACs of equal progression and gestalt Scout instead of fiddling about with Beastmaster?
Gestalting Scout solves your damage issue handily enough. Giving a full progression Animal Companion helps a lot, too. At that point, your only real issue is the casting-- another AC won't do much for that. Slap on Mystic Ranger and call it a day?

[ComaVision]

Thank you! Also, thank Flickerdart as well, and Baroknik.


So, just to clarify, full AC progression, and giving them 3 extra ACs is no bueno. Hrrm, what if we dropped it down to 2 ACs of equal progression and gestalt Scout instead of fiddling about with Beastmaster?

That's certainly a lot more powerful, and two full-progression ACs give a measure of versatility but I don't like that solution because: 1) It makes the Swift Hunter feat, which is cool, obsolete, and 2) It would slow down the game running 3 combat-able characters.

I think you're on the right track, though. Instead of poaching Skirmish, boost up Favored Enemy (gets more FEs and adds d6s of damage?). Stick with one, full-progression AC. Increase the spellcasting by some method or another to further increase versatility (and there are many suggestions for that ITT).

[Brova]

The Ranger is actually half way to a decent place, combat-wise. Unfortunately, that's not the same as halfway decent. They get the TWF and Archery trees, which lets them make a bunch of attacks at a reasonable bonus. If they had bonus damage somewhere (Dragonfire Inspiration, Precision Damage), that would be sweet. But they don't, and it isn't.

So the obvious fix is, as people suggested, to just give them a Scout Gestalt. I would probably bunch up the damage bonus for skirmish a bit, as it seems low. That needs some testing though.


So here's a thought. What if we the available combat styles and rolled them together instead of splitting them down separate paths? I mean, what if they got both styles instead of choosing between TWF and ranged.

I don't really think that matters. The Ranger isn't really having trouble because he needs TWF and Archery. He's having trouble because he can't really use either effectively.


Secondly, the Beastmaster PRC from ComAdv. What if we removed it from existence and rolled its class features into the ranger at equal levels? By this I mean giving ranger an extra companion at 4th level, etc.

Giving the Ranger a bunch of extra pets seems like it might be okay, but the deal where they all start at level one is a steaming pile.


How would the ranger stack up against other mundanes at this point?

The Ranger was already basically fine compared to other (core) mundanes. He's level appropriate til about 5th, then he falls behind rather hard. With the changes, he's probably slightly better if the Animal Companions turn out to be worth caring about.


I had a half-finished Ranger fix which massively overhauled the class to be competitive with competently built Sorcerers and pass the Same Game Test (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_%28DnD_Guideline%29). And to just be generally more interesting (I find a lot of the core martials to have really bland gameplay and flavor). A big part of that was completely redoing Favored Enemy as something much more significant.

Instead of generic +X bonuses to attacks against an enemy type, they'd get access to suites of abilities for "ghost hunters" or "dragonslayers" or whatever which were especially useful for countering the abilities of those types of enemies, but were still really useful in general. Martial techniques, alchemical tricks, a mastery of things like salt or silver, preternaturally honed senses, and unrivaled survivalist knowhow.

I don't know if this (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Ranger,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)) is in any way related, but it looks like about what you're shooting for.


The play pattern of a Cleric doesn't match the desired play pattern of a Paladin.

But they're not conceptually different at all. Both of them are "divine martial/caster hybrid".


While you're capable of duplicating the functions of a Paladin, you're still primarily focused on casting spells, not smiting evil.

A Cleric who buffs himself is more effective at smiting evil in every sense except literally having an ability called "smite evil".


Mystic Ranger spells + some expansion from 5th level druid and cleric spells + Duskblade Spells per day progression. So they get 5/9 evenly divided among their levels, and a bunch of nice spells.

That's probably a good plan, but I would give them Bard casting just because I think all the various partial caster progressions are pointlessly annoying.


Giving someone both TWF and archery doesn't really work because the character would have to invest in four weapons' worth of gold (main sword, off-hand sword, bow, magic arrows) to keep up.

Honestly, there should just be greater magic weapon or scaling magic items to cover for that.


Gestalting Scout solves your damage issue handily enough. Giving a full progression Animal Companion helps a lot, too. At that point, your only real issue is the casting-- another AC won't do much for that. Slap on Mystic Ranger and call it a day?

Pretty much. Figure out what the Ranger is supposed to be doing, give them a pile of spells that do that, and buff up their combat capabilities. That should work.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So the obvious fix is, as people suggested, to just give them a Scout Gestalt. I would probably bunch up the damage bonus for skirmish a bit, as it seems low. That needs some testing though.
It's not half bad, especially given how easy it is to to get. If you're gestalting with Ranger, you might do what I did (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?260804-Ranger-Scout-recombination-%283-5-PEACH%29&p=14192508#post14192508) and increase it significantly when used against your favored enemy-- double dice, or use d10s or something.

[SkipSandwich]

How about this as a boost for favored enemy?

Favored EnemyEx:

Rangers are consumate hunters, and specialize in hunting certain kinds of prey. Choose a type of creature other then humanoid, or two humanoid subtypes (such as Elf or Dwarf). Your natural and wielded weapons, as well as unarmed strikes and grapple attacks have +1 to hit and deal +1d6 damage. This bonus increases by +1/+1d6 at 5th level and every 4 levels after that, up to +5 hit +5d6 damage at 17th level. Finally, you are able to bypass the damage reduction of your favored foes. At 4th level you may treat all your attacks against favored enemeis as magic for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction, at 8th you may also treat such attacks as either silver or cold iron, at 12th level you can bypass DR/Adamantine, and at 16th you can bypass DR/Epic.

You gain an additional favored enemy at levels 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th.

Thoughts?

[Grod_The_Giant]

How about this as a boost for favored enemy?

Favored EnemyEx:

Rangers are consumate hunters, and specialize in hunting certain kinds of prey. Choose a type of creature other then humanoid, or two humanoid subtypes (such as Elf or Dwarf). Your natural and wielded weapons, as well as unarmed strikes and grapple attacks have +1 to hit and deal +1d6 damage. This bonus increases by +1/+1d6 at 5th level and every 4 levels after that, up to +5 hit +5d6 damage at 17th level. Finally, you are able to bypass the damage reduction of your favored foes. At 4th level you may treat all your attacks against favored enemeis as magic for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction, at 8th you may also treat such attacks as either silver or cold iron, at 12th level you can bypass DR/Adamantine, and at 16th you can bypass DR/Epic.

You gain an additional favored enemy at levels 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th.

Thoughts?
Weak. I'd go with +Wis to attack, scale the damage dice up to a d6 every, oh, two or three class levels*, and bypass all of your favored enemy's DR.

[SkipSandwich]

Weak. I'd go with +Wis to attack, scale the damage dice up to a d6 every, oh, two or three class levels*, and bypass all of your favored enemy's DR.

Fair enough, I tend to lowball numbers when homebrewing off the cuff, since I find it easier to add to a weak ability versus subtracting from a powerful ability. I'm less sure about bypassing ALL DR, but maybe all but DR/-, that would account for things like Skelleton/Zombie DR that I admittedly forgot about for the first draft.

So Favored Enemy gives +Wis to Attack versus chosen creature types, and a scaling damage boost along with the ability to bypass DR of those creatures.

Next step I see would be to follow some previous advice and replace the combat style feats with additional perks based around your chosen Favored Enemies that while designed to thwart those foes, would still be useful in other situations.

For example, a favored enemy of Giants may give you bonuses when fighting foes larger then yourself, to the point of being able to reduce or negate thier size bonus against combat maneuvers you initiate.

[LanSlyde]

Alrighty, I think for now I'm going to hold off the mystic ranger casting and just gestalt scout and ranger and give it full AC progression. This will bring them up close to equals in comparison to the crusader, beguiler, and warblade.

[nedz]

Alrighty, I think for now I'm going to hold off the mystic ranger casting and just gestalt scout and ranger and give it full AC progression. This will bring them up close to equals in comparison to the crusader, beguiler, and warblade.

Adding more mundane options to Ranger won't bump it a tier, besides Scout 3 / Ranger 17 with Swiftblade gives you most of this already.

[LanSlyde]

Adding more mundane options to Ranger won't bump it a tier, besides Scout 3 / Ranger 17 with Swiftblade gives you most of this already.


First, I am trying to bring its power closer to the rest of the party.

Second, By itself Scout 3 / Ranger 17 nets you exactly whats on the tin, the 1st three levels of Scout and the 17 level of ranger. I am unsure where the Swiftblade PrC comes into play, so if someone can clarify that for me that would be great.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Adding more mundane options to Ranger won't bump it a tier, besides Scout 3 / Ranger 17 with Swiftblade gives you most of this already.
The Ranger is T4 because it has a lot of options, but none of them are that strong. Making those options (damage, spells, animal companion) stronger should quite happily leave you in T3.

[Sqmach]

First, I am trying to bring its power closer to the rest of the party.

Second, By itself Scout 3 / Ranger 17 nets you exactly whats on the tin, the 1st three levels of Scout and the 17 level of ranger. I am unsure where the Swiftblade PrC comes into play, so if someone can clarify that for me that would be great.

Pretty sure they meant Swift Hunter, which lets you count both ranger and scout levels for skirmish and favored enemy progression, plus allowing skirmish damage to effect favored enemies even if they would normally be immune to precision damage (like undead, constructs, ex.)

[nedz]

The Ranger is T4 because it has a lot of options, but none of them are that strong. Making those options (damage, spells, animal companion) stronger should quite happily leave you in T3.
Mystic Ranger is T3, at least until mid levels. I'm not sure about the rest.

Pretty sure they meant Swift Hunter, which lets you count both ranger and scout levels for skirmish and favored enemy progression, plus allowing skirmish damage to effect favored enemies even if they would normally be immune to precision damage (like undead, constructs, ex.)

Yes, I meant Swift Hunter. My Bad — though it was very late.

[ComaVision]

Wildshape Ranger is also T3. Too bad OP decided to not use anything from either ACF.

[Brova]

It's not half bad, especially given how easy it is to to get. If you're gestalting with Ranger, you might do what I did (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?260804-Ranger-Scout-recombination-%283-5-PEACH%29&p=14192508#post14192508) and increase it significantly when used against your favored enemy-- double dice, or use d10s or something.

I don't like that much. The way Swift Hunter works gives you a strong incentive to pick stuff that's immune to precision damage, even if it's not a common enemy. So just bumping up damage against favored enemies is probably not enough. Provisionally, I'd switch it to sneak attack progression, but that might be too much. Maybe just make it exempt while using the Ranger fighting styles in general.


How about this as a boost for favored enemy?

To be honest, that just seems way too complicated. If you're really sold on the "racist hunter" aspect of being a Ranger, I would probably have favored enemy apply to types (i.e. Undead, Fey, etc), bump it up to sneak attack progression, and give abilities that help in some general way which is more effective against the chosen type.


Adding more mundane options to Ranger won't bump it a tier, besides Scout 3 / Ranger 17 with Swiftblade gives you most of this already.

*Swift Hunter.

Adding a damage source to the Ranger is totally enough to make it competitive. The problem with the Ranger is that DPS doesn't keep up with save or dies at high levels, unless you're PAing with a Greatsword or TWFing with some kind of damage bonus. Giving the Ranger skirmish is (at a first approximation) enough to fix that. Mystic Ranger would help too, but it's only really needed for noncombat stuff.


Wildshape Ranger is also T3. Too bad OP decided to not use anything from either ACF.

Well, that touches on a deeper issue. There are a bunch of different directions you could go with the Ranger. The hunter type guy who runs around with a bow and swords doing DPS and mobility is a reasonable takeaway from the Ranger class presented in the PHB. The beastmaster with a bunch of pets is also possible, as is the guy who turns into animals. Picking one direction over another isn't really an issue. The issue is that currently, the direction where you hit people with swords doesn't do enough damage.

[LanSlyde]

Wildshape Ranger is also T3. Too bad OP decided to not use anything from either ACF.

Wildshape ranger is T3 by itself. However its also requires a modicum of system mastery and book keeping to track all your transformations. The ranger in my group is new. I would rather not spend my time teaching her the various forms and drawing up altered sheets for those forms. So instead just slap scout and ranger together and call it a day.

Like I said, I am just trying to bring her up to snuff against the more experienced members of the group.

I love you people, but its like asking how to spice up a ham sandwich and receiving full instructions on how to prepare a 7 course meal large enough to feed Syria. :smallwink:

[nedz]

I love you people, but its like asking how to spice up a ham sandwich and receiving full instructions on how to prepare a 7 course meal large enough to feed Syria. :smallwink:

Well, we are trying to give you as many options as possible. Which road you take is up to you. :smallwink:

[TheThan]

A lot of this really depends on what you want the ranger to be, what you want him to do. Do you want him to be an archer? Do you want him to be a fighter/druid hybrid? Think hard before answering.

Now the mechanical problems with the ranger are as follows:

1: combat style forces the ranger down two roads, one ok with power gaming, the other, not so much. Open this up giving him access to more options will greatly improve what the player can do with the class.

2: favored enemy forces the Dm to play to the rangers’ strengths. If the Ranger never comes across his favored enemy, then his ability is wasted, if he always fights that enemy, then he had a fairly significant advantage over the other characters and if he occasionally comes across his favored enemy then he’s going to split up that bonus as much as possible to get it on as many enemies as possible this makes it’s ability to stack pointless. It also makes it too easy for a vengful Dm to punish the ranger player by denying him his favored enemy.

3: half spellcasting. The idea, I think, is to supplement the ranger’s abilities with magic which sounds sweet until you realize that you can’t get it until at least 4th level. A druid is already slinging 2nd level spells, you’re magic is not just lagging behind, it’s literally half as powerful, and it can’t ever catch up, as it can only reach 4th level magic, again, a ranger’s magic is half as powerful. While it can be argued that half casting is better than no casting, half casting will never rival a full caster.

4: half power animal companion. A ranger gets his animal companion at 4th level and only counts as half a druid for animal companion powers. It is half as powerful out of the box, with no way to catch up to the druid's animal companion. This makes it close to useless as anything of CR 4 is going to pound that poor wolf into oblivion by itself.

5: M.A.D. AkA Multiple Ability disorder. In order to make a ranger work, you need high str for damage, carry capacity etc, dex for your combat style and being stuck in light/medium armor, Con for Hp (everyone needs this but still), int for skills, wis for magic, and charisma for your animal companion and other abilities (speak with animals for instance). So you can only really make a ranger work with overall high stats, or you just forgo some ability you have in favor of something else.

If you can figure out what you want your ranger to do, and then figure out how to correct these issues you will end up with a fairly solid class.

[LanSlyde]

A lot of this really depends on what you want the ranger to be, what you want him to do. Do you want him to be an archer? Do you want him to be a fighter/druid hybrid? Think hard before answering.

Now the mechanical problems with the ranger are as follows:

1: combat style forces the ranger down two roads, one ok with power gaming, the other, not so much. Open this up giving him access to more options will greatly improve what the player can do with the class.

2: favored enemy forces the Dm to play to the rangers’ strengths. If the Ranger never comes across his favored enemy, then his ability is wasted, if he always fights that enemy, then he had a fairly significant advantage over the other characters and if he occasionally comes across his favored enemy then he’s going to split up that bonus as much as possible to get it on as many enemies as possible this makes it’s ability to stack pointless. It also makes it too easy for a vengful Dm to punish the ranger player by denying him his favored enemy.

3: half spellcasting. The idea, I think, is to supplement the ranger’s abilities with magic which sounds sweet until you realize that you can’t get it until at least 4th level. A druid is already slinging 2nd level spells, you’re magic is not just lagging behind, it’s literally half as powerful, and it can’t ever catch up, as it can only reach 4th level magic, again, a ranger’s magic is half as powerful. While it can be argued that half casting is better than no casting, half casting will never rival a full caster.

4: half power animal companion. A ranger gets his animal companion at 4th level and only counts as half a druid for animal companion powers. It is half as powerful out of the box, with no way to catch up to the druid's animal companion. This makes it close to useless as anything of CR 4 is going to pound that poor wolf into oblivion by itself.

5: M.A.D. AkA Multiple Ability disorder. In order to make a ranger work, you need high str for damage, carry capacity etc, dex for your combat style and being stuck in light/medium armor, Con for Hp (everyone needs this but still), int for skills, wis for magic, and charisma for your animal companion and other abilities (speak with animals for instance). So you can only really make a ranger work with overall high stats, or you just forgo some ability you have in favor of something else.

If you can figure out what you want your ranger to do, and then figure out how to correct these issues you will end up with a fairly solid class.

1: Specializing appeals to me when a party is involved.

2: FE by itself does little, even if they are always coming across their favored enemies. A two-hander with power attack can apply his modulating bonus damage vs anything. A ranger with FE orcs who is always fighting orcs gets exactly 2 points of extra damage that scales up slowly in increments of 2. With the modifications I am implementing I am not terribly worried about it.

3: Which is perfectly fine. They are not full casters and should not try to pretend to be.

4: Fixed by ripping the druids AC away and giving it to the ranger.

5: Strenth can be supplemented by the modifications I will be implementing. Dexterity should be high yes, Constitution should be fairly high. Int can be a lower, base 6 SP per level is better than most. Wisdom only really needs to be at 14 if that ranger wants access to her top spells. Charisma really isn't as important as you make it out to be on a ranger. Yes yes wild empathy and stuff, but its very low on the priority list.

[nedz]

Having played a single class Ranger from level 6-18 I found the following to be the case.

AC is useless except for the occasional trip attack so Cha can be dumped
I needed more spells, though (Assumes SpC)

Level 1 spells are OK
Level 2-3 spells are excellent
Level 4 spells are meh
So you need Wis 13, or 16 for more level 2-3 slots

Half CL is unimportant because it only applies to duration, which is long enough anyway; though Practised Spellcaster is a thing.
Wands are a thing, but can be hard to find for Ranger spells
Damage is low, but I could have optimised this more
FE was useful for Nemesis and Foebane, but only if you guess right.

[LanSlyde]

Having played a single class Ranger from level 6-18 I found the following to be the case.

AC is useless except for the occasional trip attack so Cha can be dumped
I needed more spells, though (Assumes SpC)

Level 1 spells are OK
Level 2-3 spells are excellent
Level 4 spells are meh
So you need Wis 13, or 16 for more level 2-3 slots

Half CL is unimportant because it only applies to duration, which is long enough anyway; though Practised Spellcaster is a thing.
Wands are a thing, but can be hard to find for Ranger spells
Damage is low, but I could have optimised this more
FE was useful for Nemesis and Foebane, but only if you guess right.


Good to know, although I was always a fan of taking the FE: Arcanists acf for Nemesis, as arcanists are the most likely thing you will need an alternative method of pinpointing.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Don't forget Favored Power Attack from Dragon Compendium!

[ExLibrisMortis]

For the ranger, I'd largely merge it with scout and add some ToB maneuvers (from any one style of your choice + Stone Dragon), and orisons (0th-level spells) to fill casting at 1-3. Then make sure Battle Blessing works for rangers - Sword of the Arcane Order already does. Now you're casting 0th- to 4th-level swift-action spells, as wizard and ranger; you're getting bonus damage when moving with additional attacks; you're getting maneuvers to actually do that moving and make strong attacks, and you have uncanny dodge, evasion, camouflage, 8 skill points per level and so on. Perhaps add an ability similar to Dervish Dance, because it plays nice both with skirmish and fast movement.

Of course, in a game like that, you'd also have to merge paladin with knight, perhaps add crusader as well. And it does bulk up your character sheet.

[Vhaidara]

Int can be a lower, base 6 SP per level is better than most.

That is just not true. Look at what you want for basic competency as a ranger.
Spot
Listen
Survival
Search (finding track)
Knowledge (Natures)
Handle Animal
Hide
Move Silently

[Grod_The_Giant]

Search (finding track)
Untrue, thankfully.

To find tracks or to follow them for 1 mile requires a successful Survival check.

[Troacctid]

A druid is already slinging 2nd level spells, you’re magic is not just lagging behind, it’s literally half as powerful, and it can’t ever catch up, as it can only reach 4th level magic, again, a ranger’s magic is half as powerful.

It's much worse than half as powerful, because the scaling on spellcasting is quadratic, not linear. There's a big difference between (x/2):x and (x/2)2:x2.

[Sayt]

Pathfinder's Ranger might offer some suggestions:
Favoured enemy is tweaked to also give a bonus to hit, and the damage isn't precision damage (which some parts of 3.5 imply, IIRC). Porting back the spell Instant Enemy can make Favoured enemy much more relevant. (Swft action, 3rd level, target enemy counts as [your choice] for favoured enemy).

Combat Style Feats: You get a list of choices, and there are additional style for conceptual fighting styles (Sword and Board, Two handed, throw, Crossbow, etc)

The casting and AC go to Lvl-3, from 1/2 level, but honestly I'd kick them up to CL=Level, and probably stick on something like Mystic Ranger, as well as opening up the options much wider.

They also get d10 and medium armour, but that's just icing, really.

[Nihilarian]

5: M.A.D. AkA Multiple Ability disorder. In order to make a ranger work, you need high str for damage, carry capacity etc, dex for your combat style and being stuck in light/medium armor, Con for Hp (everyone needs this but still), int for skills, wis for magic, and charisma for your animal companion and other abilities (speak with animals for instance). So you can only really make a ranger work with overall high stats, or you just forgo some ability you have in favor of something else.You get the basic Combat Style feats without needing prerequisites. It may not be intended but the most effective way to play a Ranger is to forget Dex and rely on Strength for offense.

Also dump Charisma like everyone else, it's useless to you.

[nedz]

That is just not true. Look at what you want for basic competency as a ranger.
Spot
Listen
Survival
Search (finding track)
Knowledge (Natures)
Handle Animal
Hide
Move Silently

Well it depends on the character, but you can get away with: { Spot, Listen, Survival, Hide, Move Silently }.
Knowledge (Nature) would be an obvious sixth choice though there are other options.

[LanSlyde]

For the ranger, I'd largely merge it with scout and add some ToB maneuvers (from any one style of your choice + Stone Dragon), and orisons (0th-level spells) to fill casting at 1-3. Then make sure Battle Blessing works for rangers - Sword of the Arcane Order already does. Now you're casting 0th- to 4th-level swift-action spells, as wizard and ranger; you're getting bonus damage when moving with additional attacks; you're getting maneuvers to actually do that moving and make strong attacks, and you have uncanny dodge, evasion, camouflage, 8 skill points per level and so on. Perhaps add an ability similar to Dervish Dance, because it plays nice both with skirmish and fast movement.

Of course, in a game like that, you'd also have to merge paladin with knight, perhaps add crusader as well. And it does bulk up your character sheet.

Except thats entirely too much work for myself to implement. Remember what I am doing, closing the gap between the rangers and the rest of the party, not overshadowing them.

[LanSlyde]

That is just not true. Look at what you want for basic competency as a ranger.
Spot
Listen
Survival
Search (finding track)
Knowledge (Natures)
Handle Animal
Hide
Move Silently

Actually it is true. I think only two classes have better than Base 6 SP per level.

Luckily the party has 2 rangers. So even if they can't grab max ranks in everything they need, they can coordinate and cover for each others weaknesses in skills.

[LanSlyde]

Pathfinder's Ranger might offer some suggestions:
Favoured enemy is tweaked to also give a bonus to hit, and the damage isn't precision damage (which some parts of 3.5 imply, IIRC). Porting back the spell Instant Enemy can make Favoured enemy much more relevant. (Swft action, 3rd level, target enemy counts as [your choice] for favoured enemy).

Combat Style Feats: You get a list of choices, and there are additional style for conceptual fighting styles (Sword and Board, Two handed, throw, Crossbow, etc)

The casting and AC go to Lvl-3, from 1/2 level, but honestly I'd kick them up to CL=Level, and probably stick on something like Mystic Ranger, as well as opening up the options much wider.

They also get d10 and medium armour, but that's just icing, really.

Interesting, but I would rather keep them in a single system right now instead of putzing around in PF.

[Troacctid]

Something I've been toying with is having half-casters (Rangers, Paladins, Hexblades) use recharge magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm).

[LanSlyde]

Something I've been toying with is having half-casters (Rangers, Paladins, Hexblades) use recharge magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm).

Interesting. How is it working for you? I admit the idea appeals to me, as it gives halfcasters more longterm staying power.

[Troacctid]

Interesting. How is it working for you? I admit the idea appeals to me, as it gives halfcasters more longterm staying power.

I haven't had the chance to playtest it beyond theorycrafting. The Ranger's spell list has some decent options both for combat and utility, though. Hunter's Eye at full caster level is a nice pickup, and you can get some decent battlefield control out of stuff like Entangle and Spike Growth. Your combat spells are better because you can use them in every combat instead of saving them for tougher fights, and your utility spells are better because you can use them multiple times a day. Also, Cure Light Wounds is sooo much better when it recharges.

[Vhaidara]

Yes, only a few classes have more then 4 skill points a level. 3.5 was hilariously miserly with Skill points for the basic amount of skills you need. Rogues are actually one of the biggest victims. To fulfil the scout role they are normally assigned
Spot
Listen
Hide
Move silently
Search
Disable device
Open lock
Which only leaves 1 point base for actually making yours different
Second story man? Add Climb, Balance, Use Rope, and Jump
Con man? Add Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive
Most Thieves will want Appraise to know what's valuable. Most will want Tumble to position in combat. Many will want Use Magic Device because it is crazy useful.

3.5 has way too many skills and nowhere near enough skull points. This is Universal, but actually worse for the classes that get skill points. You don't expect the fighter to have skills. You expect the ranger to have them.

[nedz]

Yes, only a few classes have more then 4 skill points a level. 3.5 was hilariously miserly with Skill points for the basic amount of skills you need. Rogues are actually one of the biggest victims. To fulfil the scout role they are normally assigned
Spot
Listen
Hide
Move silently
Search
Disable device
Open lock
Which only leaves 1 point base for actually making yours different
Second story man? Add Climb, Balance, Use Rope, and Jump
Con man? Add Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive
Most Thieves will want Appraise to know what's valuable. Most will want Tumble to position in combat. Many will want Use Magic Device because it is crazy useful.

3.5 has way too many skills and nowhere near enough skull points. This is Universal, but actually worse for the classes that get skill points. You don't expect the fighter to have skills. You expect the ranger to have them.

Well you only need Search, Disable device and Open lock if you are going for the trapfinding role.
But yes, this is the reason most Rogue types prefer to have high Int.
I think that the original theory behind the class was that you could use it to build a variety of skilful archetypes rather then a kitchen sink.

[Vhaidara]

If the guy sneaking ahead to see what's coming can't find and disable the traps, he is not going to have an amazing lifespan.

[nedz]

If the guy sneaking ahead to see what's coming can't find and disable the traps, he is not going to have an amazing lifespan.

Well maybe he's part of a team and someone else has this covered ?
Or it's a Wilderness based game where traps are rare ?
Or the DM doesn't like traps ?
Or maybe he's swapped out Trapfinding for some other ACF ?
Or maybe he's a Ranger ?